Ad

Repeatedly Appending To A Large List (Python 2.6.6)

- 1 answer

I have a project where I am reading in ASCII values from a microcontroller through a serial port (looks like this : AA FF BA 11 43 CF etc) The input is coming in quickly (38 two character sets / second). I'm taking this input and appending it to a running list of all measurements.

After about 5 hours, my list has grown to ~ 855000 entries.

I'm given to understand that the larger a list becomes, the slower list operations become. My intent is to have this test run for 24 hours, which should yield around 3M results.

Is there a more efficient, faster way to append to a list then list.append()?

Thanks Everyone.

Ad

Answer

I'm given to understand that the larger a list becomes, the slower list operations become.

That's not true in general. Lists in Python are, despite the name, not linked lists but arrays. There are operations that are O(n) on arrays (copying and searching, for instance), but you don't seem to use any of these. As a rule of thumb: If it's widely used and idiomatic, some smart people went and chose a smart way to do it. list.append is a widely-used builtin (and the underlying C function is also used in other places, e.g. list comprehensions). If there was a faster way, it would already be in use.

As you will see when you inspect the source code, lists are overallocating, i.e. when they are resized, they allocate more than needed for one item so the next n items can be appended without need to another resize (which is O(n)). The growth isn't constant, it is proportional with the list size, so resizing becomes rarer as the list grows larger. Here's the snippet from listobject.c:list_resize that determines the overallocation:

/* This over-allocates proportional to the list size, making room
 * for additional growth.  The over-allocation is mild, but is
 * enough to give linear-time amortized behavior over a long
 * sequence of appends() in the presence of a poorly-performing
 * system realloc().
 * The growth pattern is:  0, 4, 8, 16, 25, 35, 46, 58, 72, 88, ...
 */
new_allocated = (newsize >> 3) + (newsize < 9 ? 3 : 6);

As Mark Ransom points out, older Python versions (<2.7, 3.0) have a bug that make the GC sabotage this. If you have such a Python version, you may want to disable the gc. If you can't because you generate too much garbage (that slips refcounting), you're out of luck though.

Ad
source: stackoverflow.com
Ad